• One of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding in the next couple of months is called Mahmoud v. Taylor.
• In March, Sutherland filed an amicus brief in the case.
• The case will provide critical direction to lower courts about what to do when government actions create a burden on religious exercise.

​One of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding in the next couple of months is called Mahmoud v. Taylor. It involves a lawsuit brought by parents whose elementary-age children were going to be taught sensitive topics related to sexuality and gender in a way that conflicted with the religious faith of the families. Given the parents’ religious obligation to direct how their children will be taught about these topics, the parents wanted to take advantage of a state law that allows them to opt their children out of the instruction. Initially, the school was cooperative but then withdraw that option.

In March, Sutherland filed an amicus brief in the case. The brief demonstrates the nearly universal practice of states to allow parents to opt their children out of instruction on sexual issues. This, in turn, illustrates the significant burden placed on the religious exercise of parents who are being required to forego a right that their own state and nearly every other would guarantee them.

In an effort to explain this case in a way that would be more accessible, we have recorded a series of videos explaining what is at stake in this case and its implications.

In an effort to explain this case in a way that would be more accessible, we have recorded a series of videos explaining what is at stake in this case and its implications.

I also participated in the Defending Ideas podcast to talk about this case and similar legal issues.